REMARKS BY SAMUEL R. BERGER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
WASHINGTON, D.C.

FEBRUARY 13, 1998

My challenge today is to resist the tyranny of the news cycle and
put the current crisis with Iraq in context. I want to make clear the
danger Saddam Hussein poses to his people, his neighbors, America and
the world. I want to explain what we're doing about it -- in terms of
the current crisis over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
And I want to lay out our long term strategy for dealing with the
chronic problem that is Saddam Hussein.

Throughout his time in power, Saddam has demonstrated again and
again utter contempt for his people, the peace of his region and the
security of the world. He pursued a horrific, decade-long war of
attrition against Iran, costing at least half a million lives. He
repeatedly unleashed chemical weapons against Iran's soldiers and fired
SCUDs into its cities. In 1988, he gassed Kurdish civilians in
Northern Iraq. In 1990, his troops invaded Kuwait, executing those
who resisted, looting the country, setting fire to 600 oil wells,
spilling tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, firing SCUD
missiles at Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Manama [mah-NAH-mah]. At war's end, he
brutally put down in his own country the Kurds and Shia Arabs who rose
up in revolt against him. He ordered an attempt on the life of former
President Bush. Once again in 1994, he massed his army along the
Kuwaiti border. He forcefully occupied Irbil in Northern Iraq in 1996.
And throughout the last two decades, Saddam has worked to develop,
maintain and conceal the most terrible weapons known to humanity --
nuclear, chemical and biological -- and the missiles to deliver them.

The United States has actively and consistently opposed Saddam
because he has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a
region vital to our interests. A stable Middle East means we can
better protect the free flow of oil, fight terrorism and build support
for a comprehensive Middle East peace. There is no greater challenge
to the region's stability -- and to America's security in that region
-- than Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As
President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw
states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one
of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the
next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles. With Saddam Hussein, there is one big difference:
he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against
combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign
adversary, but against his own people. And I have no doubt he will use
them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked.

For the better part of this decade, the international community has
worked to discover and dismantle Iraq's WMD program. At the end of the
Gulf War, Iraq was given 15 days to inventory and prepare for the
destruction of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the
missiles to deliver them. The U.N. set up a special commission of
international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure that the job got
done -- and to monitor the situation so that Iraq did not reconstitute
its program.

Ever since, Iraq's WMD compliance record had been a litany of lies,
deceit and run-arounds. The full disclosure document on missiles
Baghdad was required to produce in fifteen days, it delivered -- in
five years. When UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency
uncovered facts that proved Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons reports to be grossly inaccurate, Baghdad simply amended the
reports. When Hussein Kamel [ka-MEL] -- Saddam's son-in-law and the
architect of Iraq's WMD program -- defected to Jordan in 1995, Baghdad
was forced to reveal additional weapons stockpiles and production
capacity it had insisted it did not have. Throughout, Baghdad has
engaged the UNSCOM inspectors in a high stakes game of cat-and-mouse --
lying to them, harassing them, delaying their access to sites,
flagrantly destroying evidence in plain view of the inspectors.

Yet despite Iraq's best efforts, the inspectors have done a
remarkable job. They have found and destroyed more of Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War
itself. This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than
100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles,
30 warheads specially fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and
a massive biological weapons factory at Al-Hakim equipped to produce
deadly anthrax and botulinum.

But UNSCOM's job is not yet done. Stockpiles of chemical and
biological munitions and a small force of Scud-type missiles remain
unaccounted for. And most importantly, Iraq still has the capacity to
rebuild its production program for biological and chemical weapons and
the missiles to deliver them. As UNSCOM has come closer and closer to
ferreting out Iraq's remaining weapons capacity, Saddam has become
increasingly determined in his efforts to block the inspectors and end
the inspection regime.

Which brings us to the current crisis. Over the last three months,
Saddam has sought to end UNSCOM by any and every ruse. First he
demanded that American inspectors be removed from the inspection teams.
Then he tried to dictate a change in the teams' composition. Now he is
denying UNSCOM the free and full access it must have to all sites by
designating some of them Presidential sites or otherwise restricting
the inspectors' access. But as the charts behind me show, some of his
presidential compounds are literally city-sized -- one almost as large
as the district of Columbia -- with dozens of separate buildings.

At the same time, Saddam is seeking to end the economic sanctions
imposed by the United Nations after the Gulf War -- and which should
not be lifted until Iraq complies with all U.N. resolutions, including
those on WMD. His gambit is clear and presents a stark danger to our
national interests. Compromise UNSCOM's integrity by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and Saddam keeps his
remaining weapons of mass destruction and the capacity to produce many
more of them. Lift the sanctions and Saddam gets the money he needs to
rebuild his military.

It is a situation we cannot tolerate. If Saddam defies
international controls here with impunity, he will roll on, as he has
before, energized by the conclusion that the international community
lost its will. Only our will has stopped him before. The will of
President Bush to lead the Gulf War coalition that ejected Iraq from
Kuwait and imposed tough conditions for the cease-fire. The will of
President Clinton to strike hard at Iraqi intelligence headquarters in
1993 after its agents plotted to assassinate former President Bush.
The will immediately to deploy our troops, ships and planes to the
region, as President Clinton did in 1994 when Saddam threatened to
repeat his walkover of Kuwait. The will to take out Iraqi air defenses
and extend the No Fly Zone when Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in
northern Iraq.

Now, once again, we must summon the will to respond firmly to
Saddam's challenge to UNSCOM and establish a safe haven for programs
to develop weapons of mass destruction. That is exactly what we are
doing. From Europe to the Persian Gulf, there is widespread consensus
that Iraq must meet all its obligations to the United Nations, that
UNSCOM must be allowed to do its job effectively, and that, if
diplomacy fails, Saddam Hussein will bear responsibility for the
consequences.

Many of our friends and allies would prefer a diplomatic solution.
So would we. The UNSCOM system works -- that's why Saddam is so
desperate to end it. We will spare no diplomatic effort to gain
unfettered access for UNSCOM and to assure it can do its job
effectively. We will not accept any proposal that would weaken
UNSCOM's effectiveness.

In pursuit of these objectives, President Clinton has been in
contact with his counterparts nearly every day over the past few weeks.
He dispatched Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen to Europe and the
Middle East -- and Ambassador Richardson literally around the world.
If there is a peaceful way to convince Saddam to let UNSCOM complete
its mission, we will pursue it until the end.

But if Iraq continues to tie UNSCOM's hands, as Chairman Butler has
said, it doesn't much matter if the inspectors are holed up in a hotel
in Baghdad, or in Bahrain, or in Boston. If they are not allowed to do
their job unhindered, we must be prepared to deal directly with the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- with force if
necessary. Either Saddam Hussein acts -- or we must be prepared to do
so.

For the past several weeks, the United States has built up its
forces in the Gulf. As I speak, two American carrier battle groups and
over 300 aircraft are in the region. They are joined by the British
aircraft carrier Invincible. And we continue to receive support for
action, should it prove necessary. Our force posture in the region
would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Bahrain, the GCC states, and Turkey. And many friends and allies --
including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark,
Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Australia, New Zealand and Canada
-- are prepared to provide forces, bases or logistical support. That
list is growing every day.

Should such a mission prove necessary, its purpose is clear: to
deliver a serious blow that will significantly diminish Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction threat, and reduce his ability to threaten
his neighbors. That is the objective we can and must meet to protect
our vital national interests.

The most difficult decision any President has to make is to put our
troops in harms' way. No military mission is without risk and cost.
Even the best prepared, best equipped forces will suffer losses. But
should force become necessary, the safety of our men and women in
uniform will be President Clinton's top priority. And let me say, too,
that, if military action becomes necessary, we will do what we can to
avoid civilian casualties.

If, in the aftermath of force, Iraq allows UNSCOM back in, so much
the better. Unless it does so, there is no prospect for ending
economic sanctions. But if it does not, here's how the world will look
to Saddam in the weeks and months after force is used.

First, as I noted a minute ago, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
threat and capacity to lash out at its neighbors will be significantly
diminished. We cannot destroy everything. But we can have a real
impact.

Second, Saddam will know, by our actions and our warning, that we
will be prepared to act again if we have evidence he is trying to
rebuild his weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We will closely
monitor Iraq's activities with our own intelligence methods. I have
full confidence in our ability to detect significant cheating. The
demonstrated certainty that he will pay a heavy price for his conduct
will need to become part of Saddam's calculus in the future. The
United States will not go away.

Third, sanctions cannot be lifted so long as UNSCOM is unable to
complete its mission. Sanctions hurt the Iraqi regime. The proof can
be found in Saddam's desperate attempts to lift them. They severely
restrict the amount of oil Iraq can sell and give the United Nations
control over Iraq's primary source of revenue. To date, sanctions have
cost Iraq $110 billion in oil sales. Imagine the armed force Saddam
would have today had he invested even a fraction of this money in
rehabilitating his military.

Sanctions are aimed at the Iraqi regime, not the Iraqi people.
From the start, we exempted food and medicine. To help Iraq generate
revenue to pay for such food and medicine, the United States in 1991
proposed U.N. Security Council Resolutions 706, 712 and later 986.
They would have allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil and use
the proceeds for humanitarian supplies -- subject to U.N. monitoring.
Saddam rejected that offer for five years, in effect taking the needs
of his own people hostage -- while spending what resources he had on
Italian marble for 48 new palaces and expensive automobiles for his
cronies.

In 1996 Saddam finally and grudgingly accepted U.N. Security
Council Resolution 986. Since then, more than 3 million tons of food
have been delivered to the Iraqi people. But to this day, Saddam
hinders the program's operation and deploys his people as human shields
around suspected weapons sites -- while appealing to international
public opinion to lift the sanctions with images of starving Iraqi
children and patients suffering from a lack of vital medicines. This
is the mother of cruel deceptions.

Despite Saddam's cynical efforts to manipulate the plight of his
people for political ends, we are determined to do all we can to make
oil-for-food work better. We welcome the U.N. Secretary General's
recommendation to increase the program. The more Iraqi oil goes to
feeding the Iraqi people, the less Saddam can spend on arms.

Fourth, in the weeks and months ahead Saddam will know that we will
strictly enforce the No Fly Zones in southern and northern Iraq.
Already, our airforce controls the skies from the southern suburbs of
Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border and over northern Iraq -- severely
reducing the threat Iraq poses to the Gulf countries and Turkey. We
have flown more sorties to enforce these No Fly Zones than in all of
Desert Storm. And our forces in the Gulf are ready to respond to Iraqi
aggression quickly and decisively -- countering any threat in a matter
of days instead of the months it took in 1990.

There are alternatives to our approach. I do not think they best
serve America's national interests.

Some suggest we should meet Saddam half way by agreeing to close
our eyes to Presidential or sensitive sites or to render UNSCOM
ineffective. Such a stunning reversal of the U.N. Resolutions imposed
on and accepted by Iraq after the Gulf War would be unacceptable -- and
pose a serious threat to our security.

Others suggest that the only effective solution is for U.S. ground
forces to remove Saddam from power. But the costs and risks associated
with such a venture are high and not essential to achieving our
strategic interests -- containing the threat Iraq poses to the region.
It would require a major land campaign and risk large losses of our
soldiers.

There is no question that Iraq and the world would be better off if
Saddam were out of power. As Secretary Albright said in March, we
would gladly work with a successor regime ready to live at peace with
its neighbors and resume its rightful place in the community of
nations. The Iraqi people deserve no less. In the meantime, we have
worked with Iraqi opposition groups -- and we will continue to do so.

But as long as Saddam Hussein is in power, we must be prepared to
respond firmly to his reckless actions. When the international
community weakens in the face of his threats, Saddam simply is
emboldened. When we stand as one, Saddam is thwarted. That is the
timeless lesson to apply to dangerous tyrants. Sustaining our policy
will require constant vigilance. It will from time to time cause
tension with our friends and allies. And it will require that we
sustain the will to act each time Saddam seriously challenges the
international community. We are on the right course. Staying with it
offers the best prospects for protecting our interests and preserving
our stability in a vital part of the world.